Permanent home for the Olympics

[PapaLion]

It is my nature, I'm a least cost analyst. I view the resources and the need and try to find a way to use the least resources to correctly solve the problem. Could be animal feed, could be materials to build a Tele...just my nature.

Why is there not a permanent place to hold the Olympics? The last several events have spent 40 billion and now 15 billion to create an adequate arena. Still, there are logistics problems, there are security problems, and the event is marred by weather and human density. We could have a City or country co-sponsor each time which would flavor the event a bit and offset costs.

How about we finally use our head. We could place the Olympics permanently on an isand off Greece, Paros for ex... and build a marvelous facility. Every four years we could enhance the physical facility and improve the overall pleasure of attending.

The days of a city hosting are over, security alone dictates that. Also, the actual cost is overwhelming. Ticket costs and logistics are not cost effective at all either.

Let's go to Greece, they need the cash input every four years; they are good at hostng this kind of thing, and an island can be secure.

[BigDaddyLH]

Do the Olympics make the host country a profit?

And I've seen the weather forecast for London -- rain and cool on most days. They should at least factor typical weather into choice of venue.

[Fendrcaster]

I think for the typical Olympic attendee, the experience of seeing a new country is as big a part of the trip as the Games themselves. I expect attendance would drop off pretty sharply if the events were held in the same venues every four years.

[Slow Reflexes]

That would kind of eliminate the idea of a cultural exchange from the Olympics, wouldn't it?

I have no issue with it, really - unless they end up being somewhere other than Greece. That'd just be wrong. But maybe Greece doesn't want the burden of being the host every year.

[PapaLion]

I have no clue on the $. Make or spend take in or go in the hole. I think some have lost some... how could you not spending multi billions so a coupla thousand folks can run around?

A co sponsor of a city or country would allow some flexibility. If a country or city wanted to do a value added thing fine, profitable would work.

Just looking at the overwhelming waste of trying to force a 2,000 pound elephant into a
MG. Absurd would be the word I'm looking for.

[fuzzbender]

So far, banning Olympics seems a more logical idea for global harmony

[Seasicksailor]

I started reading the post and kept thinking "What a bad idea! What a bad idea!"... then I read the suggestion about Greece and I started thinking "What a good idea! What a good idea!".

But seriously, having different host countries is still the best option. Apart from cultural exchange, it is supposed to be good for development and tourism. On the other hand, I'd like to see less financial burden for the host country. It's supposed to be a good thing, not a financial disaster.

On the third hand, yes I am Zaphod, I would like to see the Olympics scaled down and returning to being an amateur event.

[goldtopper]

Have Brigadoon be the host.

[fuzzbender]

Originally Posted by goldtopper

Have Brigadoon be the host.

Genius

[KokoTele]

Hosting the Olympics is a mixed bag for a city. Those who manage it very well end up with a rapid growth and new infrastructure to help drive the city for decades. Those who don't end up with empty relics and a load of debt on the taxpayers.

My hometown of Chicago put in a serious bid for the 2012 summer games, and a couple of good friends were vocal opponents (and demonstrators) trying to drive the games away, fearing that the short term growth and revenue would be overshadowed by massive debt and new infrastructure they couldn't maintain. That seems to happen every time a city puts together a bid.

I found this great article (dated now, but still relevant): http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/o...wn-901629.html

[fezz parka]

I vote West Covina.

[w3stie]

Just use a big movie lot with bluescreen, and add all the scenery later. It's all about TV rights anyway.

[Doorlord]

Originally Posted by fezz parka

I vote West Covina.

Cool idea, get the old Covina / West Covina war all fired up again.

[Dave_O]

Originally Posted by PapaLion

I have no clue on the $. Make or spend take in or go in the hole. I think some have lost some... how could you not spending multi billions so a coupla thousand folks can run around?

A co sponsor of a city or country would allow some flexibility. If a country or city wanted to do a value added thing fine, profitable would work.

Just looking at the overwhelming waste of trying to force a 2,000 pound elephant into a
MG. Absurd would be the word I'm looking for.

The only people who come out in front is the IOC.

My vote says "Have it in Greece, if they want it."
Otherwise drop the facade and make it an openly commercial affair, funded by corporations with all athletes doped to within an inch of their lives.
Kinda like how it is now.

Not one taxpayer's dollar/pound/euro/yen/kroner/zloty/rouble/dinar/rupee or yuan need go into it.

[Dave_O]

Originally Posted by KokoTele

Hosting the Olympics is a mixed bag for a city. Those who manage it very well end up with a rapid growth and new infrastructure to help drive the city for decades.

Not likely.

Originally Posted by KokoTele

Those who don't end up with empty relics and a load of debt on the taxpayers.

Much more likely. The taxpayers of Australia are still coughing up for the 2000 bunfest.

Originally Posted by KokoTele

My hometown of Chicago put in a serious bid for the 2012 summer games, and a couple of good friends were vocal opponents (and demonstrators) trying to drive the games away, fearing that the short term growth and revenue would be overshadowed by massive debt and new infrastructure they couldn't maintain. That seems to happen every time a city puts together a bid.

Think yourself lucky.
If you don't learn from history, you're bound to repeat it.

Originally Posted by KokoTele

I found this great article (dated now, but still relevant): http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/o...wn-901629.html

That sort of sums up the results. The problem is that if it all pans out well, the positive part is trifling. If it all goes pear-shaped however, it is a major SNAFU that may take the country decades to sort out. If at all...

[Nick JD]

I recall Sydney and L.A making a fair bit off the games.

Like anything, it can be done right, or wrong, and international events preceeding it can have a huge impact on its success.

[Dave_O]

Originally Posted by Nick JD

I recall Sydney and L.A making a fair bit off the games.

Really?

[ScatMan]

Are you suggesting one place for both the Summer and Winter Olympics?

[Nick JD]

Originally Posted by Dave_O

Really?

Depends who is tapping the calculator. 1.7 billion?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_the_Olympic_Games

[Toto'sDad]

Fuzzbender wrote:

So far, banning Olympics seems a more logical idea for global harmony.

Is that what you're talkin' about? Sounds like a good idea to me.